Section 407 stipulate the work requirements as defined by Congress (with no with authority under the law to allow for HHS to waive - which is another convo).

Section 402 is the reporting requirement states need to provide to the Fed. gov't on their TANF programs. (that portion of the law is WAIVABLE which is ironic.)

If you read the statement by HHS - its basically saying, since we can waive the reporting requirement (and only temporarily at that as per the law), we can then re-stipulate work requirements from another section on criteria we have yet to determine. To include, and I say again for effect - "..definitions of work activities and engagement"

I can't spell it out any more than that. I guess this may be one of those "Don't believe your lying eyes" type of moments for the Dems on this board.

No, you're drawing wild conclusions from a vague statement. It's another "well this might happen if this and that happens which might make this turn that way and...." Typical wild assumptions being drawn from silly Republicans that are just trying so hard to blame everything on Obama so they can have their boy Mitt try and do better (which he won't.)

Section 402 is not a "reporting requirement." The funny thing is, you even said yourself that Section 407 cannot be waived, and they have no intention of waiving it. The fact remains that this proposal allows the States more flexibility to choose other ways to IMPROVE the program. The key is that they MUST improve welfare to work by 20%. Removing the work requirement doesn't do that.

I know you can't spell it out, because it doesn't exist. You still haven't shown me where anything says the actual work requirement is removed, like the Romney ad states, and I know you won't be able to. But I mean you're pulling everything else out of thin air, so I figured you'd show me some sort of article that pulls that statement out of the abyss as well.

For the record, I'm a registered Republican, in the US Army, and a lifetime NRA member. I believe myself to be pretty conservative, but when someone blatantly lies (either side) I find it hard to stand side-by-side with them.

No, you're drawing wild conclusions from a vague statement. It's another "well this might happen if this and that happens which might make this turn that way and...." Typical wild assumptions being drawn from silly Republicans that are just trying so hard to blame everything on Obama so they can have their boy Mitt try and do better (which he won't.)

Section 402 is not a "reporting requirement." The funny thing is, you even said yourself that Section 407 cannot be waived, and they have no intention of waiving it. The fact remains that this proposal allows the States more flexibility to choose other ways to IMPROVE the program. The key is that they MUST improve welfare to work by 20%. Removing the work requirement doesn't do that.

I know you can't spell it out, because it doesn't exist. You still haven't shown me where anything says the actual work requirement is removed, like the Romney ad states, and I know you won't be able to. But I mean you're pulling everything else out of thin air, so I figured you'd show me some sort of article that pulls that statement out of the abyss as well.

For the record, I'm a registered Republican, in the US Army, and a lifetime NRA member. I believe myself to be pretty conservative, but when someone blatantly lies (either side) I find it hard to stand side-by-side with them.

I spelled it out for you baby-style as for the actual clause that says HHS can take proposals from the States on the DEFINITION OF THE WORK REQUIREMENT.

Plain as day in front of your eyes that the Administration will take proposals on redefining the work requirement. It is already defined in section 407. What pray tell is it going to change to?? You dense enough to argue that the WhiteHouse is going to make it TOUGHER to stay on welfare?? Lol.

I also like how after asking for "Facts", I slapped them all over the place on actual real issues with the 20% waiver target and none of them get refuted on his silly this metric is.

I can care less about your affiliation when you don't argue in good faith. I've already read all the "Opinions" from the media. Why do I need those when I can read the actual rule??

I spelled it out for you baby-style as for the actual clause that says HHS can take proposals from the States on the DEFINITION OF THE WORK REQUIREMENT.

Plain as day in front of your eyes that the Administration will take proposals on redefining the work requirement. It is already defined in section 407. What pray tell is it going to change to?? You dense enough to argue that the WhiteHouse is going to make it TOUGHER to stay on welfare?? Lol.

I also like how after asking for "Facts", I slapped them all over the place on actual real issues with the 20% waiver target and none of them get refuted on his silly this metric is.

I can care less about your affiliation when you don't argue in good faith. I've already read all the "Opinions" from the media. Why do I need those when I can read the actual rule??

And you're arguing in good faith? Please, you've done nothing but attack me the entire thread...

And of course, since you can't understand what I am asking you to show (or just don't want to) you resort to personal attacks. Very nice. You're so mad that you're wrong, you can't even spell correctly or use phrases the right way, lol...

Nothing is worse than a denier who when presented with facts keeps denying their lying eyes no matter what they see.

I proved why the 20% improvement threshold is a joke. I proved that that the work requirement is up for re-definition, and not for the better. I haven't even got to the point that the law doesn't even authorize such proposal/waiver in the first place - I was just letting you argue the supposed merits before blasting your whole premise away.

We haven't even got to the true problem of the matter and that's the record-number of folks on welfare and food stamps, 1 in 6 Americans in poverty, household income down $4,000 since Obama took office, etc.

Nothing is worse than a denier who when presented with facts keeps denying their lying eyes no matter what they see.

I proved why the 20% improvement threshold is a joke. I proved that that the work requirement is up for re-definition, and not for the better. I haven't even got to the point that the law doesn't even authorize such proposal/waiver in the first place - I was just letting you argue the supposed merits before blasting your whole premise away.

We haven't even got to the true problem of the matter and that's the record-number of folks on welfare and food stamps, 1 in 6 Americans in poverty, household income down $4,000 since Obama took office, etc.

You ignore the "Definition of the work requirement " again. Gutted may be a little over the top, but why do you feel it is ok for prez to just go ahead and change the work requirement when he can not legally do so?

It is like when he legalized all of his illegal little voters coming across the border without taking the proper steps. Obama just keeps on doing whetever he wants and getting away with it.

You ignore the "Definition of the work requirement " again. Gutted may be a little over the top, but why do you feel it is ok for prez to just go ahead and change the work requirement when he can not legally do so?

It is like when he legalized all of his illegal little voters coming across the border without taking the proper steps. Obama just keeps on doing whetever he wants and getting away with it.

Did read. Read again. It does not say that the work requirment will be dropped. But it now can be dropped. The finished product is yet to be seen. This is a result of changing things that he is not allowed to change. Obama wants people to be dependent on the government. This is just one small step in that direction.

Did read. Read again. It does not say that the work requirment will be dropped. But it now can be dropped. The finished product is yet to be seen. This is a result of changing things that he is not allowed to change. Obama wants people to be dependent on the government. This is just one small step in that direction.

Yep! Again, I was never arguing the legality of it, like you said that was a whole separate issue. But my hunch was that eventually someone would get a legal review on this and it would turn out like this.